IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v41y2023i12d10.1007_s40273-023-01297-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Handling Missing Data in Health Economics and Outcomes Research (HEOR): A Systematic Review and Practical Recommendations

Author

Listed:
  • Kumar Mukherjee

    (Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine)

  • Necdet B. Gunsoy

    (Abbvie Ltd.)

  • Rita M. Kristy

    (Astellas Pharma)

  • Joseph C. Cappelleri

    (Pfizer Inc.)

  • Jessica Roydhouse

    (University of Tasmania)

  • Judith J. Stephenson

    (Carelon Research)

  • David J. Vanness

    (Pennsylvania State University)

  • Sujith Ramachandran

    (University of Mississippi)

  • Nneka C. Onwudiwe

    (Pharmaceutical Economics Consultants of America)

  • Sri Ram Pentakota

    (Rutgers New Jersey Medical School)

  • Helene Karcher

    (Novartis Pharma AG)

  • Gian Luca Di Tanna

    (University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Southern Switzerland)

Abstract

Background Missing data in costs and/or health outcomes and in confounding variables can create bias in the inference of health economics and outcomes research studies, which in turn can lead to inappropriate policies. Most of the literature focuses on handling missing data in randomized controlled trials, which are not necessarily always the data used in health economics and outcomes research. Objectives We aimed to provide an overview on missing data issues and how to address incomplete data and report the findings of a systematic literature review of methods used to deal with missing data in health economics and outcomes research studies that focused on cost, utility, and patient-reported outcomes. Methods A systematic search of papers published in English language until the end of the year 2020 was carried out in PubMed. Studies using statistical methods to handle missing data for analyses of cost, utility, or patient-reported outcome data were included, as were reviews and guidance papers on handling missing data for those outcomes. The data extraction was conducted with a focus on the context of the study, the type of missing data, and the methods used to tackle missing data. Results From 1433 identified records, 40 papers were included. Thirteen studies were economic evaluations. Thirty studies used multiple imputation with 17 studies using multiple imputation by chained equation, while 15 studies used a complete-case analysis. Seventeen studies addressed missing cost data and 23 studies dealt with missing outcome data. Eleven studies reported a single method while 20 studies used multiple methods to address missing data. Conclusions Several health economics and outcomes research studies did not offer a justification of their approach of handling missing data and some used only a single method without a sensitivity analysis. This systematic literature review highlights the importance of considering the missingness mechanism and including sensitivity analyses when planning, analyzing, and reporting health economics and outcomes research studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Kumar Mukherjee & Necdet B. Gunsoy & Rita M. Kristy & Joseph C. Cappelleri & Jessica Roydhouse & Judith J. Stephenson & David J. Vanness & Sujith Ramachandran & Nneka C. Onwudiwe & Sri Ram Pentakota &, 2023. "Handling Missing Data in Health Economics and Outcomes Research (HEOR): A Systematic Review and Practical Recommendations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 41(12), pages 1589-1601, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:41:y:2023:i:12:d:10.1007_s40273-023-01297-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-023-01297-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-023-01297-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40273-023-01297-0?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:41:y:2023:i:12:d:10.1007_s40273-023-01297-0. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.